Yes, it's foolish to take you to task for doing the same thing you criticized me for. Right.

Quote:

OK. Good. We have a point of agreement on the reality of the situation.

Probably. Probably. Probably.

OK, so Iran probably has a nuclear weapons program. Iran is probably pursuing a nuclear weapon. And Iran probably would still be pursuing a weapon even if we left them alone. Now, let's add to that the threats against Israel and the United States. Let's add to that the fact that Iran's leaders run an oppressive regime which supports terrorism. And Iran's fanatical religious zealots believe that their Messiah will come when Armageddon arrives.

From all that, you conclude it doesn't really matter if Iran gets a nuclear weapon and that everyone would be better off if we just withdrew militarily, economically and diplomatically? How do you support that?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Yes, it's foolish to take you to task for doing the same thing you criticized me for. Right.

Actually, they were't the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

OK, so Iran probably has a nuclear weapons program. Iran is probably pursuing a nuclear weapon. And Iran probably would still be pursuing a weapon even if we left them alone.

Probably.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Now, let's add to that the threats against Israel and the United States. Let's add to that the fact that Iran's leaders run an oppressive regime which supports terrorism. And Iran's fanatical religious zealots believe that their Messiah will come when Armageddon arrives.

This is where things get a bit dicier. The interpretation of their words and actions are clearly...a matter of interpretation. As I pointed out previously their hostility appears to be a response to a perceived threat of hostility by the US and/or Israel. That changes the equation a bit. It suggests that maybe we (and/or Israel) are provoking them.

This is where things get a bit dicier. The interpretation of their words and actions are clearly...a matter of interpretation.

Maybe if it's a statement, or two, or three. But there has been a repeated pattern of aggressive statements. These have been going for years. You're really going to tell me you just don't know what they mean?

Quote:

As I pointed out previously their hostility appears to be a response to a perceived threat of hostility by the US and/or Israel. That changes the equation a bit. It suggests that maybe we (and/or Israel) are provoking them.

Tell you what..I'll concede that at present, they are probably being a bit more aggressive in tone because of our actions. Obviously, they don't much like the fact that we're turning up the heat (so to speak) on them diplomatically and financially. However, that doesn't mean our actions are wrong. It doesn't mean the situation would be better if we didn't take those actions. Ultimately, those actions are a result of Iran's original provocations, from anti-Israeli and anti-semitic statements (holocaust denial, anyone?) to supporting terrorism, to enriching uranium despite massive oil resources.

Let's take this down a notch and let me ask this: What do you think we should do with respect to Iran policy?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

First, do not isolate them. This doesn't work. It may create some short-term compliance but long-term hostility and conflict. To start, open trade with them. Let's consider the wisdom of Frederic Bastiat who said: "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

Second, put Israel on notice telling them we will not support a preemptive strike against Iran unless there is a real and credible threat of imminent attack. The US and Israelis can act pretty damn quickly if needed. Preemptive strike is only going to engender hostility and validate what the hard-liners are claiming (that the US and Irsael want to wipe them off the map!)

I don't have a problem keeping a watchful, careful, alert, ready and defensive eye on them...but stop the aggressiveness. Freezing their assets is a good example of petty aggression.

Finally, I'd argue there's a difference between being strong and being aggressive. The two are frequently confused. In my observations aggressiveness tends to come from those who are actually weak but trying to appear strong.

First, do not isolate them. This doesn't work. It may create some short-term compliance but long-term hostility and conflict. To start, open trade with them. Let's consider the wisdom of Frederic Bastiat who said: "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

So we should open trade with a country that openly supports terrorism and is exceptionally hostile towards our ally, Israel? I disagree.

Quote:

Second, put Israel on notice telling them we will not support a preemptive strike against Iran unless there is a real and credible threat of imminent attack. The US and Israelis can act pretty damn quickly if needed. Preemptive strike is only going to engender hostility and validate what the hard-liners are claiming (that the US and Irsael want to wipe them off the map!)

Right, so we should wait until Iran develops a nuclear weapon. After all, we can respond "pretty quickly." Hope for the best, you say! Secondly, can we please stop with the "we were misquoted" nonsense with regard to wiping Israel off the map? That's by far not the only statement they've made. Some are much more specific.

Quote:

I don't have a problem keeping a watchful, careful, alert, ready and defensive eye on them...but stop the aggressiveness. Freezing their assets is a good example of petty aggression.

What you're saying is "let them do whatever they want." I disagree.

Quote:

Finally, I'd argue there's a difference between being strong and being aggressive. The two are frequently confused. In my observations aggressiveness tends to come from those who are actually weak but trying to appear strong.

How you actually view the U.S. and Israel as the aggressors here is beyond me.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I'm saying that trade is the way to diffuse the hostility. At this point all actions that are currently being used and that you appear to support actually risk escalating hostility.

No, free trade is the way to send American dollars to support terrorism.

Quote:

Actually...I'm saying wait until they are actually presenting a real, credible and imminent threat, not a just words.

Iran having a nuclear weapon is a real, credible threat. And it's becoming more imminent by the day.

Quote:

I'm saying if they are a concern, watch closely and respond when there is a real, credible and imminent threat.

There is. And by the way, words mean stuff. If you see me in my garage building a rocket launcher and I tell you "I'm going to blow up your house with this rocket launcher if you look at me cross-eyed," you might consider that a "real, credible, threat."

Quote:

Well, perhaps someday you'll come around to seeing things more clearly. Unless there's no way that you could or would ever see the US and Irsael as aggressors.

If I see actions where we are the aggressors, I'll label those actions as aggression. But the U.S. doesn't typically act in that fashion. Now, we definitely meddle in places we should not, but I wouldn't call that "aggression." We don't conquer. We don't invade a country and make it another state or territory.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

No, free trade is the way to send American dollars to support terrorism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Iran having a nuclear weapon is a real, credible threat. And it's becoming more imminent by the day.

There is. And by the way, words mean stuff.

You may want to review the definitions of those words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

And by the way, words mean stuff. If you see me in my garage building a rocket launcher and I tell you "I'm going to blow up your house with this rocket launcher if you look at me cross-eyed," you might consider that a "real, credible, threat."

True. Unfortunately that analogy bears no resemblance to the situation with Iran.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

If I see actions where we are the aggressors, I'll label those actions as aggression.

Good. Iraq? Pakistan? Libya? Vietnam?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

But the U.S. doesn't typically act in that fashion. Now, we definitely meddle in places we should not, but I wouldn't call that "aggression."

No. Probably not always "aggression"...but you'll let me know how you feel when I choose to meddle into your family and household won't you?

It's probably because Canadian officials haven't said terrible things about China (some incorrectly translated, others not). It's probably because Canada isn't next to any Chinese interests. It's probably because Canada doesn't have a history of China overthrowing Canada's government in the 1950s. It's probably because Canada doesn't have the kind of religious people SDW hates running its government.

Yeah, jazzy, your analogy does fail in many ways. Not that SDW is right that increasing aggression toward Iran is at all the prudent path...far from it...but your analogy does suck.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Good, then we agree that Iran doesn't currently represent a real, credible and certainly not imminent threat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

It's a hell of a lot better than the stupid Chinese/Canada analogy.

I don't think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Iraq: In response to a perceived threat from WMD and breaking U.N. resolutions.

Pakistan: Killing terrorists who supported the 9/11 and other attacks.

Vietnam: Supporting a non-communist government over a communist one, during the heigh of the Cold War.

I think get it, there's always a valid reason for the US to use aggression but never one for anyone the US deems...ummm unjustified in using aggression.

It's rather amusing that you are actually justifying Vietnam given that most people now admit that war to have been a major mistake of US foreign policy, not to mention that the escalation in Vietnam was predicated by a lie to the American people and Congress. Iraq can easily be viewed the same way. So 2 of the 3 are epic fails and, arguably the meddling, which you've admitted to may well be a key source of terrorist activity targeted at the US.

You're really digging a deep hole here.

It's almost as if, since becoming a true super power (during and as a result of WWII), the US foreign policy and military approach has been almost a complete failure, possibly as a result of its hubris.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Different issue. I fully concede that we stick our noses where they should not be at times.

Different but related. I think you'd agree that when one sticks one's nose in places it doesn't belong (and the US has done this often) one it likely to get punched in the nose from time to time...or, minimally, threatened. If the meddler then responds that the meddle-ee is being the aggressor, we'd probably agree that is a rather disingenuous position to take.

Good, then we agree that Iran doesn't currently represent a real, credible and certainly not imminent threat.

It represents a real, credible threat. I wouldn't say it's imminent yet. However, I don't think we should wait for it to be imminent. That doesn't doesn't mean I want military action, but we should absolutely not go down the Kumbaya path you describe.

Quote:

I don't think so.

If you honestly don't see the problem with that specific analogy, I can't help you.

Quote:

I think get it, there's always a valid reason for the US to use aggression but never one for anyone the US deems...ummm unjustified in using aggression.

Not at all.

Quote:

It's rather amusing that you are actually justifying Vietnam given that most people now admit that war to have been a major mistake of US foreign policy, not to mention that the escalation in Vietnam was predicated by a lie to the American people and Congress.

I'm not justifying it at all. I'm simply saying it wasn't an act of aggression. That is all.

Quote:

Iraq can easily be viewed the same way.

No, they cannot. Totally different situations.

Quote:

So 2 of the 3 are epic fails and, arguably the meddling, which you've admitted to may well be a key source of terrorist activity targeted at the US.

I'll ask you to restate that as I'm not sure what you mean.

Quote:

You're really digging a deep hole here.

It's almost as if, since becoming a true super power (during and as a result of WWII), the US foreign policy and military approach has been almost a complete failure, possibly as a result of its hubris.

I don't agree with that at all. We had the right policy with the Soviets...or should I say we had the right policy under Reagan. That's a major example which contrasts with you position.

Quote:

Different but related. I think you'd agree that when one sticks one's nose in places it doesn't belong (and the US has done this often) one it likely to get punched in the nose from time to time...or, minimally, threatened.

Agreed. See "Installing the Shah" for an example.

Quote:

If the meddler then responds that the meddle-ee is being the aggressor, we'd probably agree that is a rather disingenuous position to take.

In a vacuum, yes. In reality and with regard to Iran, no. Obviously installing the Shah was a bad move that ended up biting us in the butt. However, there isn't much point trying to re-litigate that now. It doesn't change the fact that the Mullahs, the Ayatollah and President Ahmadinejhad are anti-Semitic fanatics who are dedicated to Israel's destruction, support of terrorism, oppression of their people, etc. I really don't see the point in going back decade after decade to play the Guess the Real Aggressor game. At present, Iran is the one making aggressive statements towards Israel. Iran is the one that supports terrorism. Iran's leaders are the ones who question the Holocaust (ehh..pardon me..."research whether or not it occurred as an open, scientific question." Cough.)

Here's the point: Given the world as it is, given Iran as it is, my view is Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. We should use every diplomatic and economic tool we have, but in the end it may take military action to prevent it. I fundamentally disagree with those who say "we" have no right to tell Iran if it can have a nuclear weapon, just as I disagree with opening trade with Iran is a good idea. Those views aren't going to change...unless Iran does.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Hug them. Help them prosper. Make it against their best interests to attack anyone. Don't hurt them and corner them. What happens when you intimidate a wounded, scared animal? Well, precisely what you want to bring about the Rapture.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Hug them. Help them prosper. Make it against their best interests to attack anyone. Don't hurt them and corner them. What happens when you intimidate a wounded, scared animal? Well, precisely what you want to bring about the Rapture.

I've stayed out of the Iran discussion precisely because I didn't want my religious views to be influencing the discussion.
For the record, I do believe that there are prophetic implications in what is occurring now in the Middle East.

However BR, at least pretend to have a clue what you're talking about.

No one "brings about the Rapture" by doing anything. The only precondition was the sharing of the Gospel right around the world. That was fulfilled eons ago.

You are talking about people wanting to hasten the Second Coming of Christ.
That is a different event, at least to the particular Christians you are aiming at with the derogatory Rapture reference.

Clearly that one gaffe invalidates my entire point that there exists powerful groups in this country who want to go to war in the Middle East because the voices in their heads tell them it will hasten the return of their zombie king. You sure got me, Frank.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Clearly that one gaffe invalidates my entire point that there exists powerful groups in this country who want to go to war in the Middle East because the voices in their heads tell them it will hasten the return of their zombie king. You sure got me, Frank.

This is where atheists go right off the rails. Instead of linking to all sorts of things that have no relation to the thread (in a vain attempt to look intelligent), just post ONE link that proves there are such "powerful groups" who truly believe that going to war with Iran has some sort of linkage to the Rapture or Second Coming of Christ.

Because you said similar things about war in Iraq. And it turned out to be false.

Seriously, please identify one group that believes the U.S. going to war with Iran will hasten the return of Christ.

Dispensationalists do believe that the 1948 restoration of the State of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. As do I.

Many Christian groups believe that Israel and the Jews are unfairly targeted because of their biblical heritage as God's People, and that it is a country indeed worthy of protection from destruction. In other words, we should do much earlier what we did too late in World War II.

However, I've been studying Bible Prophecy for decades and I know of no-one who believes that protecting Israel from anyone will hasten the Rapture or Second Coming.

Indeed, I personally believe that the West will fail to act against Iran and the War of Gog and Magog will come soon. Very soon.

There is no place in prophecy where outside forces other than the Lord Himself come to Israel's aid in a battle.

Your argument would actually make more sense if you claimed Evangelicals were desperately trying to keep the U.S. out of a mideast war to hasten the Rapture.

That doesn't really help your case at all. In fact, it makes it look like you really don't have one.

You know, on this issue I really must. Why? Because we're not simply disagreeing about an issue. It's not like I'm arguing for military action in Iran while you argue against. It not just that an argument like that which happens to get heated. No, it's that you are espousing a view of the world that has been proven throughout history to result in disaster if implemented as policy.

Anyone with any understanding of history--of how the world works--knows that your approach (the Paul approach) is dangerous. The examples are numerous. Neville Chamberlin decided to leave Germany alone and agree to positive relations. The result? The Blitz. We decided to leave Japan alone despite growing evidence of its hostility. The result ? Pearl Harbor and entry into WWII. History is replete with such examples of what happens when strong nations withdraw and allow tyrants to have their way. It is further replete with examples of making the mistake of thinking our adversaries always share our values, as if somehow if we treat them differently, they will forget their ways and learn to embrace us. Your approach will do nothing but embolden Iran and ultimately put Israel and the United States at greater risk.

Think about it: You are actually saying that we should simply "leave them alone" and hope for the best. I'm sorry, but no. We can disagree about what to do and how to do it. But when you fundamentally refuse to understand and acknowledge how the world works, I'm going to call you out on it. Not only that, but when I see a group of people blindly and naively embrace these views, I'm going to label them what they are: Paul Tards. You should hear yourselves. You're looking out the window, seeing a bright sunny day. You're then running around telling everyone it's raining. You label this mere disagreement. I label it insane fantasy.

My question was rhetorical. No, you need not insult and call people retarded. But that you both feel the need to and chose to spend time defending your name calling and insults speaks volumes.

I guess we're done.

Are you going to cry? It is not I that have to defend myself, it is you. Defend your position on Iran. Offer examples of such policies working in the past. Otherwise, admit you're just going to bed and hoping everything turns out OK in the morning.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

And you continue with the insults further validating my appraisal that your main tactic is to bully.

Nice of you to simply declare this to be the case.

We're done. We disagree about the best approach. You want to insult and call names.

So you cannot demonstrate why your position is the best approach. Got it. Oh, and by the way...saying that your position is fantasy is not an insult. Saying "Ron Paul and the Paul Tards" when referencing Paul's foreign policy is not calling you names.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

So you cannot demonstrate why your position is the best approach. Got it. Oh, and by the way...saying that your position is fantasy is not an insult. Saying "Ron Paul and the Paul Tards" when referencing Paul's foreign policy is not calling you names.